Let's put aside our personal hangups and bring back something, although unpopular in some quarters, worked very well and keep the speeders in better check that the chaos and carnage that is on our BC roads today.

Despite unpopularity, bringing photo radar back to B.C. a good idea, expert says

Chris Foord, the vice-chair of the Capital Regional District Traffic Safety Commission, disagrees.

He says new technology allows for much more sophisticated, automated and cheaper detection methods.

"Back when photo radar was there [in 2001], someone had to change the film in the camera. There were no smartphones. Laptops were brand new. There were virtually no digital cameras back then. The world is a different place."

He claims there are plenty of people habitually speeding far beyond the occasional mistake.

"I am appalled by what I'm seeing," he said. "I don't know that your right or my right to be that irresponsible and drive at those speeds should go unchallenged."

'Effective road safety not a popularity contest'

Foord pointed to a 2016 report from Dr. Perry Kendall, B.C.'s Provincial Health Officer, which said a spike in traffic fatalities after 2001 could be reasonably linked to the B.C. Liberal government's decision to scrap the photo radar program. That report also recommended photo radar be revived.

He says photo radar will help reduce ICBC premiums by making British Columbia roads safer, and even though many British Columbians wouldn't like photo radar, it's worth it.

"Effective road safety is not a popularity contest," he said.

While Eby was firm on rejecting photo radar, he did say the government would consider how additional technologies — like devices consumers can voluntarily install in their cars — can help reduce premiums.

A report commissioned by ICBC is leaked and warns that B.C. drivers will be hit by rate hikes of almost 30 per cent in the next two years if the government doesn’t dramatically overhaul the insurance corporation.

Based on the results of our cross-Canada analysis and our supporter survey, Dogwood has developed a bullet point list of what we think Ban Big Money legislation should look like. After years of being silenced by Big Money, British Columbians won’t settle for anything less than the gold standard. This is the standard we will use to measure any campaign finance laws that are introduced.

HERE IS A SHORT SUMMARY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS:

Limit on individual contributions: less than $1,000 each year.

A ban on all anonymous donations.

Donations should be publicly disclosed in real time.

In-kind donations and employee lending should not be allowed.

British Columbia should reduce the amount of money a political party can spend in each election.

A fair system of public supplementation of campaign expenses, including the current tax return system, may be allowable.

Laws should be imposed retroactively back to May 9, 2017.

The new legislation should include a provision that requires campaign finance laws to be revisited and reviewed every ten years.

All these laws should also be applied to municipal campaigns and elections.

The biggest cost to taxpayers of the current electoral system are the costs of a legislative and public spending agenda that is distorted by big donors.

I'm proud of your Government's new bill to ban corporate, union, and out of province donations and limit individual donations to $1200 -- the second lowest cap in the country and the absolute lowest cap for a province with no permanent public subsidy system in place.

The critics can go ahead and criticize -- the fact of the matter is that when this bill is passed, it will put an end to the "Wild West" of BC electoral financing once and for all and forever ensure that voters, not people and corporations with the deepest pockets, decide who wins elections.

...the fact of the matter is that when this bill is passed, it will put an end to the "Wild West" of BC electoral financing once and for all and forever ensure that voters, not people and corporations with the deepest pockets, decide who wins elections.

​The very wealthy don't really care who wins an election. Yes, they prefer it if their friends win, but in the end they will use their money to achieve the ends they desire. That may be through funding of political parties, or by threatening to move their money elsewhere if they don't get what they want.

​In the end, it is those who control vast collections of capital who control what governments do, regardless of who elects the government, or the govenments particular political stripe.